Hold Congress Accountable

About FreedomConnector

Find activists, groups, and events right in your own neighborhood. Join FreedomConnector to get involved and learn more about key issues threatening our economic freedom. Whether you’re looking for like-minded people, trying to boost your existing group’s impact, or simply trying to stay up on current events, FreedomConnector is the place to start. See what’s happening in your state today!

Search FreedomWorks

Resources

Blog

Lindsey Graham vs. the Constitution

What is going on with Republican (?) Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina? He’s never been the most conservative of conservatives but, this week, he’s managed to tell us just how unimportant he finds the Constitution not once, but twice. Apparently, in Lindsey Graham’s world, the First and Fourth amendments are disposable.

On Tuesday, Lindsey Graham questioned whether or not the First Amendment applies to all Americans, or just a select few. Congress is weighing a media shield law in the wake of the AP/Justice Department scandal. That leads to the question of whether or not bloggers will be covered under such a shield. When asked about it, Graham said

"Who is a journalist is a question we need to ask ourselves. Is any blogger out there saying anything—do they deserve First Amendment protection? These are the issues of our times."

Of course, this immediately raised a few eyebrows. Graham later chalked that up to a slip of the tongue, and later tweeted

Senator Graham didn't mention anything about the right to free press though.

If that tweet made anyone suspect that Graham was a friend of the Constitution, it should be back in question today. As it was reported yesterday, the NSA has been collecting the phone records and metadata of millions of Verizon customers in the United States. Certainly no fan of limited government can be ok with such unwarranted (literal and figurative) breach of our Fourth Amendment. Not to worry! Graham once again proved that he is not such a fan. "I'm a Verizon customer," Graham said. "I don't mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States." He then doubled down on his position, saying “I’m sure we should be doing this.”

In what version of America does he live? In what America can the government flagrantly step on the Constitution when they see fit? Lindsey Graham’s America, apparently. The last thing we need in this country is big-government politicians masquerading as conservatives. Graham, we’re on to you.

There are foreign countries that want to create a Hitler Like Dictatorship in the US to steal our property and natural resources. They are following Hitler's plan and they fund RINOs like Graham, and DINOs like Obama and Clinton, to destroy the constitution and our civil rights.

Hitler always followed the same plan to steal the property of his 13,000,000 victims:

1. registered his victim's guns, then had brownshirts take his victim's guns

2. removed his victim's civil rights
a) right to freedom of speech
b) right to trial by jury
c) right to life
d) right to property
e) right to protect our families with arms

3. caused a government collapse with counterfeiting and government overspending

It will be very interesting to see if the citizens of the Palmetto State will re-elect this "moderate" Republican who has no use for Conservatives. It looks like Joe Wilson might be running for the Senate in 2014 and so far he is favored to win. Lets hope for a change.

Good Lord in Heaven I hope you're right Gordon. If not Joe....SOMEBODY!! South Carolinians (Carolinains...Carolinans...?) are better than this and deserve better. WOW! the only thing that scares me worse than this man at the levers of power is the fact that there are more up there like him!!

A group of liberty-minded House Republicans made waves in late January when they announced that they were leaving the Republican Study Committee to form a new invitation-only caucus that will focus exclusively on presenting and advancing an agenda grounded in limited government and the Constitution.

It didn't take long for the intelligence community's best friends in Congress to invoke last week's terrorist attack in Paris, in which 17 people were brutally killed at the offices of a satirical magazine, in the contentious and continuing debate over the National Security Agency's unconstitutional domestic spying programs.

Today's vote for Speaker of the House is about much more than who will lead the lower chamber over the next two years. It's also about the future of the limited government, the principles on which Republicans run but often seem to cast aside when they're in power. All one needs to do is look to the not so distant past to find examples.

Senate Democrats recently tried to push through a constitutional amendment that would have repealed free speech protections in the First Amendment, making Congress the sole arbiter of what is and isn't political speech. Thankfully, this effort, backed by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) failed to get the two-thirds needed for a constitutional majority, killing the proposed amendment for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

As one of our over 6.6 million FreedomWorks activists nationwide, I urge you to contact your senators and ask them to vote NO on S.J. Res. 19, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would enshrine into law the government’s ability to restrict political free speech. Sponsored by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) and co-sponsored by 48 of his colleagues, this amendment would take the unprecedented step of amending Americans’ First Amendment rights.

This Independence Day, millions of Americans will gather to watch fireworks, grill some burgers and dogs, and celebrate the hard-fought freedoms of our forefathers. But in the heady rush of red, white, and blue patriotism, it’s important to remember what those freedoms actually mean, and to examine whether they still remain intact today.

For the past year, the Supreme Court has been mulling the case of Harris v. Quinn, in which the state of Illinois was asserting its authority to collect union dues from non-union members working as home health care workers under a Medicare program. The state’s argument was that, since public sector labor unions negotiate contracts that benefit non-union members in terms of higher wages and better working conditions, it would be acceptable to expect these workers to pay union dues in return.